1988 PLP 790 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A. 37 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Ex parte decision of Labour Court Labour Court had jurisdiction to set aside same if cogent grounds for non‑appearance of affected party were shown‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing petition for setting aside ex parte decision, was not . appealable‑‑ Appeal however could be treated as revision if such illegality was found for which suo motu revisional powers could be exercised‑‑Neither any evidence regarding engaging of Counsel produced nor such Counsel himself was examined ‑before Labour Court‑‑Petition for setting aside ex parte decision, in circumstances, held, was rightly dismissed by Labour Court and order did not suffer from any illegality so as to invoke exercise of suo motu revisional powers by Appellate Tribunal. Ch. Khalil ur Rehman for Appellants. Sh. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th April, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the orders dated 6‑2‑1988 and 20‑10‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore. Vide order dated 20‑10‑1986 ex parte decision was passed against the appellants and vide order dated 6‑2‑1988 the petition for setting aside the ex parte decision was dismissed.

2. The appeal against the order dated 20‑10‑1986 is timebarred;. The ground for condonation of delay is that the file was put up before the competent authority to get sanction for filing the appeal and that the file had been misplaced and could not be located till 20‑3‑1988. However, so far as the ex parte order dated 20‑10‑1986 is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed it during arguments and so far as the order dated 6‑2‑1988 is concerned, it is not appealable. The appeal can be treated as revision but no illegality can be found in the said order for which suo motu revisional powers be exercised. The ground is that the counsel to whom the' case was entrusted did not appear in the Court, therefore, the case was decided ex parte. One witness was examined who said that he had gone to the office of Mr. Hamid Khan, Advocate, but he could not be contacted. Going once to a counsel is not sufficient. If the lawyer was not found at his office, he should have been tried to be contacted again in the office or at his residence. The witness stated that the lawyer was residing in Model Town but did not say that he had gone to the residence also. No document has been produced to show that in reality Mr. Hamid Khan was engaged. In every Government case noting is done and an order is recorded for engaging the counsel. If in reality any counsel by the name of Mr. Hamid Khan had been engaged, the official record would have been produced in support of the plea. The Advocate was also not examined in support of the fact that he was actually engaged. If he had been engaged, only he could explain under what circumstances he was not able to appear.

3. However, this finding of the learned Lower Court is not acceptable that the application for setting aside the ex parte decision did not lie. If the Court proceeds to decide the case ex parte, under the same procedure it has jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte decision if cogent grounds for non‑appearance are given. The petition therefore, was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Court.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E./536/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.